> This is something I keep seeing on this list. Someone raises
> a query about the rules, and gets a series of GM tricks in
> reply. While these are sometimes (often?) useful, they aren't
> really addressing the issue raised. Maybe they are the only
> suggestions that can be offered, but I find it worrying that
> too many of them seem more like work rounds than bug fixes.
My feeling on this question of advancement rate is that this is not a system problem but a campaign problem.
If a character, for example Karath (my character in campaign that includes Benedict Adamson, Bruce Ferrie and Ian Cooper), insists on only spending points on a single skill then the narrator in particular but also the other players should throw problems at Karath that his single skill cannot solve.
I have a choice. I can spend HP on Karath's single skill and risk being put out of the game by a situation that he cannot handle. Or I can spend HP on rounding out his skills to handle many more situations.
If a player insists on spending only on their single skill then narrators must not flinch from throwing these problems at the character. Non fatal situations include those around the character becoming fearful of someone with that power who does not have high relationships to bind him into the community. The High Priest of the cult asking why he he is unable to show the virtues of the god ind addition to the magics (or even the god not granting the powers because the initiate of or devotee of are too low).
In actual fact, in our campaign it has taken about 50 sessions for my character's major affinity to go from 5w to 6w2 (I have had several longish breaks overseas during 18 months of play).
PS Guys, I would like more opportunities to use my merchant skills and the newer godi/magical abilities).
Powered by hypermail